Artist of the Month: Henri Rousseau.

Hi guise! 

September is over already? I have been so busy that I didn't even notice.

Something quite embarrassing happened to me on friday (28^th). I'm a part-time waitress and on friday I had my very first French couple. What made the situation embarrassing for me was that I could remember how take their order in french, even though I have been studying french for 3 weeks!!! Q_Q of course the couple didn't know this, but I was just so frustrated and embarrassed that I didn't know how to ask what they'd like to drink/eat in french. And we had just done restaurant conversation in class on the day before! *sigh* Naturally when I went to bed that night I suddenly said to myself: Qu'est ce que vous voulez prenez? Even though it means 'what would you like to have?' I think it would have sufficed. But yeah, the situation was all over already.

The Equatorial Jungle 1909.

This month's artist is Henri Rousseau, a French fine artist who is the established father of Naïvism. Soft yet vivid colours, exaggerated flora, highlighted backgrounds are classic Rousseau. Naturally Rousseau didn't know this at the time, but he had began to establish the characteristics for naïve art Sadly Rousseau wasn't appreciated in his own time, people didn't regard his paintings as art. Just like with other really appreciated artists, Rousseau's genious wasn't discovered until years and years after his death. And now we are left to analyze what naïve art is about, what Rousseau was about.

Naïvism is a movement that is devoted to simple childlike images in subject matter and technique. In the past naïve art was hardly considered as art because it was practised by non-professional artists or children. However Henri Rousseau showed that people who practiced Naïvism had their own expressive vision. Rousseau was born in May 21^st 1844 in Laval France. Unlike many other Fine Artists Rousseau was completely self-taught. Rousseau admitted that he had received some advice from Academic painters, but other than that he had no education in art. Rousseau attentend the Laval High School as a day student, but he switched to a boarding school after he and his family had to leave Laval upon the seizure of their house. As a student Rousseau was mediocre, but he did rather well in drawing and music and won many prizes. After high school, in the early 1860's, Rousseau began to study law and worked for a lawyer, but later he "attempted a small perjury" and moved to serve in the army for four years. After his father died Rousseau along his mother moved to Paris in 1868. To support his mother Rousseau became a customs officer. He was married twice, and with his first wife had six children (only one survived). In 1871, he was appointed as a tax collector on goods entering Paris. It took Rousseau almost fourty years to start painting seriously and it took nine years more until he could retire from his day job and become a full time artist. What I find encouraging is that Rousseau wasn't one of those artists who got famous really young. Rousseau had a family to support and unfortunately art wasn't going to bring in the dough. So he did what was logical and got a job.

Self-portrait 1890

When Rousseau gradually began to paint he first painted portraits of people, cityscapes and everyday tasks and activities. Rousseau's paintings of Paris are especially interesting. From 1886 Rousseau began to show his work in the Salon des Indépendants regularly. He enjoyed some success and his paintings were noticed and commented on, but the public wasn't really into his portraits and landscapes. Being able to exhibit his work in the Salon, Rousseau started to familiarize himself with the works of innovative artists. He came to know the museums in Paris and visited exhibitions. He read many books about the artworks of all eras and familiarized himself with how-to-paint manuals. Through photographic reproduction he got to study various landscapes and locations. While another review said that Rousseau's city- and landscapes are rather restricted and lack scale, I find them very charming. They may not be as detailed as his jungle paintings, but they look decorative. I personally think that people shouldn't dismiss them because they look childish, but see the elaboration Rousseau expresses. The technique is the same and the colours are very similar between the jungle paintings and the city paintings, the only distinction is the colour white that Rousseau used a lot in his city- and landscape paintings. Rousseau's "Self-portrait" from 1890 looks fantastic. It has that authenticity and wonder every artist aspires for. It is a given that the painting looks very monotone, but if you study it closely you'll see that Rousseau's knowledge of dimension and proportions are in tact. If you remove the giant Rousseau from the scene the proportions seem to look alright. In his city-and landscape paintings Rousseau showed that his independent studying paned out. Although he neglected a few rules concerning shadows and debth, but other than that we can see that Rousseau knew how to paint 'right'. It just wasn't his style. I just have to respect him for not getting in involved with all the academics and did what he wanted to do. In this painting, the dimenssion would look alright if Rousseau hadn't distorted it by adding a character that changed the whole look. It's Rousseau himself that changes the look of the painting. In 'The Flamingoes' it's the giant flowers that change the scene. Even though the whole image should now be perversely wrong both of these paintings are 'saved' by Rousseau's genuine painting style. However, the change doesn't happen automatically because the characters literally amalgamate into the scene so it doesn't seem odd that there are giant people or giant flowers in the scene. In fact the giant Rousseau and the flowers seem to be quite at home in the scenes. 
 

Naïvism is uniquely different from any other artistic concept, yet it demonstrates similar arrangement as inspirational and coherent as any other art genre. This is one of the reasons I like naïvism so much, it's so versatile. You see, naïvism usually looks like it didn't take a genious to make such 'a simple' image, but in truth naïve art requires a lot arranging and insipration before it can be executed. Not to mention achieving the right look and mood can be tricky. Naïve art takes insipration from the real world, but fantasy and the artist's imagination are also important factors. Hence one could say that subject is the most influential factor in Naïvism. Rousseau had never been to a jungle or a desert in his life, yet he made such vivid and accurate paintings of them (within Naïvism terms of course) . Rousseau's jungles came from illustrated books, the Zoo and the botanical gardens in Paris. He would spend hours sketching the animals or the plants. He met soldiers who had survived the French expedition to Mexico and listened to their stories about the subtropical country they'd exprerienced. (who said you personally had to be there to understand its beauty ^_^ Although, I'd like to go there anyway). ''Use your imagination'' could as well belong to naïve artists, because that's what they (we, am I naïve too...) do.

The Flamingoes 1907.

The first condition for the practice of Naïvism is not to wilfully aim at being naïve. Naïve art cannot be imitated because the results would be as fake as, for example, a copy of abstract art. Trust me, if you are sincere with your style, it's really difficult to try to copy someone else (yes I know that there are artists who specifically copy old master's works, but that's a whole different genre). The beauty of a true naïve artist is their need to paint, arising from their soul, not from their skills. It is based on the necessity to express the self, a necessity which is much stronger than the artist's skills of creation. The old cynic in me would say that this is just an excuse bad artists use to mask their lack of painting skills, but I create naïve art myself so I understand what painting from the necessity means. I'd like to quote Mr. Carl Jung now “One might say that naïve painters have certain pictorial ideas circulating in their subconscious which quite spontaneously demand to be given release”. Jung is certainly right. To Rousseau it wasn't important for his paintings to look accurate, they were the expression of his needed for release and necessity to put his vision across. While some of the paintings were carefully mapped out the vision was still the most important factor of the painting process. In Rousseau's paintings we can see the similar accuracy of details on the background and the foreground. Some naïve artist cherish that 'children's finger paintings' look more than others, but I believe Rousseau was more into finding a style that lingered somewhere between child-like and modern (make note that at that time, there were many rising art genres, including Impressionism. Remember to check my review on Claude Monet). Many things were happening in the arts at that time, and yet Rousseau's work managed to shock people. His flat and childish style was ridiculed by many critics. I can imagine how it must have been like for him to be so sincere with his work and yet nobody understood it. Well that's not it, people at the time didn't like Rousseau's painting's because they weren't accustomed to his look. It's that irony again that great artists are only appreciated after their dead. Never the less, some of the observers thougt that even though Rousseau painted like a child, he showed sophistication and authenticity with his technique. While 'interviewing' my BFF he gave me a two syllable description on Rousseau: 'original genious'. This shocked me a little because I didn't expect him to give a positive review. As a former rookie artist himself, I didn't expect him to like naïve art because I was under the impression that he only valued, like art art, like accurate art, trees look like trees and people look like people etc. But after this he went back to being himself and said that Rousseau's work was a typical counter reaction for the late 1800's narrow-minded academics.

Tiger in a Tropical Storm (Surpris!) 1981.

In 1891 Rousseau's “Tiger in a tropical storm (Surpris!)” was exhibited in the Salon des Indépendants and he received his first serious review. The young artist Félix Vallotton wrote: "His tiger surprising its prey ought not to be missed; it's the alpha and omega of painting." What's so charming about this particular painting is the scene itself. This is one of my favourite's from Rousseau. The critics didn't like it for it lacked in debth, but I don't see it like that. “Surpris!” may seem monotone, but it expresses Rousseau's sense of colours really well. Rousseau didn't mean to paint realistically, what matter was how he envisioned and executed his paintings. The rain in the painting is exeptionally well made. This painting (and many other Rousseau paintings) was built up meticulously in layers. He used a large number of green shades to capture the lush exuberance of the jungle. It's difficult to tell just by looking at that image, but I think in reality we could be able to see all those layers (Oil paint can get very thick the more layers you add) The rain in the painting is extraordinary. It took me a while to figure out how Rousseau acchieved that effect. I knew he couldn't have swipped a large paint brush across the wet paint, because that would have damaged the finished layers. I later read that Rousseau devised his own method for depicting that lashing rain. He trailed strands of silver paint diagonally across the canvas, a satin-like technique William-Adolphe Bouguereau used in his paintings. That is ingenious! Who said you can only use paint brushes.

While naïve art is mostly about simple everyday experiences, it remains uninfluenced by common art traditions. In both the artist comes to grips with their personal experiences which encourages them to paint pictures that mirror their memories, desires and vision. However naïve artist is specifically ignoring such attributes as perspective and proportions because the impact of the picture as a whole excists solely in the mind of the artist. Naïve artist's demonstrates instinctive and sometimes surprising colour choices. I, for one, do not like bold colour combinations, like the ones Henri Matisse and Pablo Picasso used. Some artists detest bright colours because they find them at odds with the scene they are creating. Some artists have no problem with colours because they know how to control them and how to achieve the desired look. And then there are those who simply enjoy all colours, and see the possibilities they offer. This is precisely the area in which the naïve artist most often displays his/her inborn talent. Rousseau's palette, for example, is a mixture of earthly colours. I discovered that many art critics seemed to think that the gentle colours were symbolic to dreams. In “Surpris!” we see how the murky-earth tones create such light yet expressive painting. Whilst in “The Flamingoes” we see a much more sensitive yet playful side of Rousseau's sense of colours. ”The Flamingoes” for example has a totally different impact on me than “Surpris!”. “The Flamingoes” is a sensitive and happy painting and I especially like the warm pink Rousseau used on the flowers. The murky pink (almost purple) flamingoes add a nice contrast to the scene. For some reason the giant flowers don't look out of place at all. The palm trees and the people on the background make this a realistic scene and not at all fantasy like. If this painting was ment to be a dream, to me it doesn't seem so at all. To me it looks like this place could excists in reality.

The Sleeping Gypsy 1897.

It is said that  in the world the naïve artist lives in bears the stamp of narrative authenticity. Hence we could assume that Rousseau's paintings are fantasies of his. His jungle paintings especially express great sense of storyline. The story isn't complicated nor scandalous, but rather descriptions of what goes on in the jungle. “Surpris!” expresses both movement and story because in the tiger's eyes we can see the surprise and rage. The original story is that the tiger is about to pounce on its prey. But to me it looks like the flashing lightning scared the tiger, by revealing its hiding place. "The Equatorial Jungle" to me looks like it was made by Tove Jansson. Those animals looks so much like some of the characters in the Moomins, and I swear that that painting would make a perfect Moomin story! It looks so mysterious yet darling. Not at all threatening even though it's a jungle, and jungles are supposed to be scary because all kinds of ferocious animals live there. But those two don't look ferocious to me, just mysterious. Perhaps this jungle was ment to be a dream too. The soft colours surely suggest it. I indeed think that the whole Tove-Jansson-look gives this painting a dream-like atmosphere, and which I, by the way, don't get from Rousseau's other paintings. Even if Rousseau ment to tell a specific story with this painting or with "Surpris!", he was kind enough to leave room for interpretations. “The Sleeping Gypsy” is a different story too. It gives me a totally different feeling than the other paintings. To me it seems like a gypsy has fallen asleep and he/she dreams about a lion coming to investigate him/her. OR my other interpretation is that the gypsy is a sleep and a lion has come to see what the gypsy is doing. It sounds much cuter ^_^ The dark colours were a surprising choice, since so far Rousseau had only used soft earthly colours. Yet these soft yet really dark colours seem to fit into Rousseau's style. I'm not sure if this was just an experiment, but this happens to be one of Rousseau's most famous paintings. It seems to combine that dream like state and what Naïvism is. In Naïvism the images are narratives of sort, which then carry the viewer away. If I remember right, one of the books I read listed which Rousseau paintings were dreams or imaginary. But I think it's much more fun to leave it up to the viewer to decide whether any of Rousseau's paintings are dreams.

As I said before, naïve art cannot be copied for it comes from within. Rousseau demonstrated this in choice of colours and subject. To me Rousseau's landscapes seem like they are the dreams and the jungles are real. And perhaps this is because his inspiration came from stories he heard from the soldiers. Naïve artists live in their dream lands and conjure images by their own fancy. The paintings created after those images, illustrate the lives and experiences of the person who painted them, as all naïve art does. 

I hope you enjoyed my review on Henri Rousseau. 
Thank you for reading and see you later!
Cheers!

A.P 

Autumn book club: The Taker.

Hi guise!

It's time for Autumn book club! September edition xP

*Shiver*
*Shudder*

And that's just the beginning of this book...I'm gonna do my best to ruin yet another book for you >=) Ganbatteimasu!
I must stress out that IF you LIKED/LOVED this book, avert thy eyes because I'm going to diss this book so bad. You have been warned.

Okay so the story is set in Maine US and first we meet Luke, a doctor who works in a hospital in St. Andrew (not a real place I hear). Luke is divorce, his daughters live with their mother and he is pretty much tired of his boring life. Until a mysterious blonde is brought to his reception late at night. The local sheriff found her wandering in the snow (it's mid winter), blood stains in her clothes. She told him that she killed a man fer hours ago. The sheriff brought her to Luke to check up on her over all well being.  Lanore (I can't decide whether this is a really really stupid name for a female protagonist or not. Almost as 'I-wanna-puke' bad as Anastasia, or Isabella or Elizabeth! None of these names are good for a protagonist, too cliché. Ahem I almost became Isabella myself O_o) is in deep trouble, yes she killed a man, but the man asked her the kill him. He was her only true love. Her one true love, her everything, the apple in her apple pie, the mascara in her makeup kit, the stuffing in her plush toy, the...believe me, the rest of the book pretty much goes like this: Lanore describing her undying love for her one true love Jonathan. It gets really anesthetic belive me --_-- 
So Lanore asks Luke to spring her free and once he sees that the man she claims to be Jonathan, is the same man at the morgue, he helps her escape. The rest of the book Lanore explains her undying love for Jonathan and how she came to be immortal. Oh I'm sorry, did I leave that part out. Yeah Lanore cuts herself to show Luke that she is indeed unkillable. She has been alive for over 200 years. And thus she starts to explain how she came to be (they are driving to Canada whilst she tells her story).

Perhaps at this point I should explain why I ever decided to read this book. You see I had read reviews, and one review said 'Adair is the 21st century Lestat'. Come on, of course I have read Anne Rice's vampire books and of course I once had a huge crush on Lestat. So naturally I became interested, I wanted to know who this Adair, who dares to challenge Lestat, was. Plus the other reviews raved about Adair's eternal passion for this girl and the way he was obsessed with her. This sounded very romantic to me, I'm a lil soft for dark romance. However, these reviews were for the second book 'The Reckoning' hence I decided to read 'The Taker' first so I'll know what's going on in 'The Reckoning'. I thought this would be like a horror romance story. Oh how wrong was I.

Back to action! Lanore was born in Saint Andrew in the early 1800s and she is obsessed with the town's playboy Jonathan. Her and her family are simple farmers whilst Jonathan is the village's "leader's" son. Of course every girl and woman in town lusts after Jonathan, and Katsu pretty much spends the rest of the 400 or 500 pages explaining how desirable and utterly beautiful and sensitive and splendid and heartbreaking and breathtaking etc etc Jonathan is. Seriously, could this woman squees more figurative expressions in to her book?! Even after 150 nothing's happened in the story. "His eyes were like the colour of honey, honey that decorated that sweet cake we had last night which reminded me of those sweet moments in the church when I could gaze upon his honey coloured eyes and his eyes reminded me of warm sunny weather when the sun made my hair shine in pure gold and that gold reminded me of that honey cake we shared which was like the colour of his eyes.." Seriously, once Lanore begans her story, this is how the dialogue goes. Oh yuck what dialogue! And to be clear, that quote is not from the book, but you get my point. Katsu's dialogue is very awkward and very very figurative. I bet every poet (and every ahem smart reader) would shutter at her inept dialogue. Of course Lanore is deeply in love with Jonathan, but he couldn't care shit about her. He likes her, but he will never love her or even acknowledge her love (in short he is an insensitive dick and Lanore is plain stupid). She can never give up on her love for him, even after he chooses another girl to 'date'. Sophia is married, and when she tells Jonathan that he has gotten her pregnant he asks for Lanore's advice. She goes to talk to Sophia and apparently convinces her to kill herself. It's under debate whether what Lanore said to Sophia made her kill herself. Lanore merely said that Sophia is a fool if she thinks that Jonathan will acknowledge their child + his family will never accept Sophia because she is from a poor family. Lanore tells Sophia to tell her husband that the child is his, but Sophia chooses otherwise because she too is immensely in love with Jonathan. 

Lanore is left to think what she did, but at Sophia's burial, Jonathan and Lanore meet and he taps her. Lanore never tells Jonathan that she went to speak to Sophia before she was found dead. Even though Jonathan is devastated by the loss of his love, he starts sleeping with Lanore on regular basis. By now 250-300 pages have gone by, I think. Katsu spends a lot of time creating an image of Lanore as dutiful young girl, but underneath she has a dark side too that only feeds her lust for Jonathan. It has been a while since I've seen such a selfish yet stupid female character. She is just utterly obsessed with her sweet eyed Jonathan who played with her when they were children on their backyard that now reminded her of his wild side that seemed to grow like the wild flowers they planted together that now were only a memory of their sweet childhood together, and that childhood reminded her of his sweet eyes that sparkled on that particular spring day like the sunflowers they went...but she also longs for adventure and knowledge. She isn't particularly adventurous, since her only wish is to settle down with Jonathan. However her wilder side is brought to life when the story finally progresses. Surprise, she learns that she is pregnant for Jonathan's baby. However he is now engaged to another girl, and he is ready to get married to the girl (what a standup garçon!).
Lanore then suggests that she gets rid of the fetus, but her father won't allow it. So he decides to send her to a convent near Boston. Thank God Katsu doesn't spend too much time telling about Lanore's journey to Boston. Lanore is very sad and devastated to leave her family and Jonathan and off she goes. We arrive in Bostan rather quickly taken how Katsu wrote around 200 pages of Lanore's obsession with pretty Jonathan. Once in Boston Lanore decides to escape. She accidentally meets three people who are going to a party. She is taken to a grand mansion, and given some wine. There is a big party going on (a party of the 1800's), but soon she blackouts. She wakes up briefly only to notice that she's being raped in front of a grand audience. She spots a well dressed, evil looking guy watching her and then she blackouts again. 
Needless to say that that evil looking dude was Adair, the guy who I thought was the male protagonist of this story --_-- *sigh* Katsu isn't that good at coming up interesting male characters.

To make long story short, Lanore gets terribly ill, Adair (seriously, I just wanna call him Aidar. I'm not even sure if 'Adair', was a real boy name in Hungary...hhmm.. in the 1400s? If not then this is another problem with contemporary writers, they have the hots for complicated names --_--) refuses to call for a doctor, and just before she is like about to die, he gives her magic potion which turns her immortal. When she wakes up again, Lanore is devastated to hear about the loss her baby. At this point, even I felt a bit bad for Lanore (oh BTW they call her Lanny), I mean her true love couldn't give a shit about her, she was pregnant with his child, her only 'memento' of him, she had to escaped in order to keep her child, but then she ran in to some really bad people and now, she is forever binded to this...well...bad man. A lot of things happened to Lanore in a short amount of time. 
Anyways, Lanore is coming in to terms with the fact that she can never leave Adair. Adair then proceeds to teach her everything about life. She is rather eager and reseptive and I can't decide if I like it that Lanore, the dutiful girl, is suddenly really into all kinds of nasty/naughty sex stuff. I mean, if I was Lanore, I would:
1. Bust a cap in Adair's ass for having me raped in his party.
2. Bust a screwdriver in Adair's ass (so the cap will go even deeper) for literally tying me to him for all eternity (they actually can leave him, it's just that he won't let them).
and 3. burn that place down and probably go insane. 
Seriously I would be very upset if I got involved with Adair and his posse and rape parties.
But Lanore doesn't see it that way. She has a hot guy who is filthy rich, so he is capable of taking care of her and he is showing her a world she never even dreamed of. I understand that this is very glamorous and opens a lot of doors, I just don't understand why she would want to have anything to do with a man who just arranged her rape and is the reason she lost her baby. What the fuck are you doing girl?!

Suprisingly Katsu decided to avert Lanore's sex adventures by quickly dismissing them with phrases like 'seeing him in the morning reminded me of the wild night we spend together' or ' I ran into her in the hallway, and it immediately brought back memories of what she and I did together last night, in front of him'. So...you guys did what? I know you guys had wild sex, but c'mon, this is just a cheap trick to avoid the book being labaled as 'pornography'. I mean, if you are going to write about a girl who is sexually awaken and brought to this world of orgies and girl-on-girl sex then at least write about it accordingly --__-- Personally I think it's so cheep when a writer makes sex an important part of the story yet he or she is clearly incompetent or lazy to actually write about it. It's as if Katsu is saying 'Use your imagination'. That's a cheap shot madame, really cheap. You are the writer, make the effort! 

I probably would have enjoyed this book when I was 16....but now all I can say is, dämn you university! My simple mind was ruined by your assignments that required a lot of thinking and analyzing! I'm clearly not the target audience for this book because what came next, well, I could say it made me wanna hurl just for the fun of it, but then I'd be cheap for saying such simple phrase. Okay so this is a story of Lanore telling Luke her story, so it's a story within a story. However of course we have to hear Adair's story as well. So now it's a story within a story within a story. *sigh* So we spend the next 100 pages reading about Adair's origin. His story would have been interesting IF Katsu's writing style wasn't so...so simple and dragging. In the end we learn that Adair was a gypsy who became emplyed by an evil sorcerer and he spend, what good 5 years living in his shack, serving him and doing his biding. Until one day he had had enough so he made a deal with a local priest who arranged an uprising in the village and the villagers killed the old sorcerer. Adair inherited the sorcerer's money and land and eventually became a count (if I remember correctly).  And that's Adair's story, except Katsu tells it within 100 pages or more just to show us that Adair is a victim himself and the reason he is such a douche is because was abused severely in the past.

There is one positive thing I can say about this book though. Lanore never falls for Adair. I was so sure that sooner or later she'd be hopelessly in love with him. But nope. She kinda likes him and appreciated everything he has given her and taught her, but her heart cannot be changed. It belongs to Jonathan. Even though it's so boring to read about Jonathan and Lanore's constant gushing about her 'bottomless grief' and 'eternal love and obsession' for Jonathan, I couldn't be happier that she didn't go with Adair in the end. Personally I think she could never really put her finger on Adair and whether she liked him or respected him or cared for him. I think their relationship is in the grey area where neither one can tell what their relationship is really about. Adair keeps telling her how he is obsessed with her and that she is the only one who understands him (because she is as evil as he, apparently) and he will never let her leave his side. Even if Adair constantly says this stuff, Katsu doesn't convey it realistically enough for the reader to really buy it. In my ears everything Adair says is just empty words or whitenoise. But thanks Katsu for not making Lanore fall for Adair.

Lanore actually tries to escape one time, but she gets caught. Adair takes her and his posse to the mansion's cellar, straps her in this weird harnest and abuses her. "I'm not gonna tell you how Adair abused me. Let me have my privacy" says Lanore to the reader. *sigh* You see what I mean, Katsu is so cheesy. I get that not meany people would be interested to read how Adair punished Lanore because: 1. some people are just sensitive and  2. that'd express too much character development. Afterwards Adair's posse comforts Lanore, they all have been through the same punishment and now can never leave Adair. Speaking of his posse, there is Alejandro, who recriminated his little sister for practicing witchcraft (a total lie) so that the inquisition in Spain would set him free instead. Then there is Italian hmm Dona was his name? who modeled for a famous Italian painter and had him arrested for pedophilia. There is Tilde a Scandinavian woman who killed her husband and children because she liked this other dude much better. And lastly Uzra, a concubine and the first member in Adair's posse. Plus there are a few minor minions in the mix. Adair likes to think all the members of his posse are as evil as he is, including Lanore. He is certain that the two of them belong together because they are the same. He doesn't trust anyone in his posse, but keeps them at arm's lenght (or closer) to control them, and to enjoy their lovely company.

By now the story has gone surprisingly long without Lanore talking about Jonathan. Until Adair gets too curious and sends her to get him. I forgot a few details, but before Lanore leaves to fetch Jonathan for Adair, she takes the immortality potion with her. It's a tiny vial, but she finds it amoung the torture stuff Adair keeps in the basement. So she takes the vile and goes back to St. Andrew, bearing gifts to her family and Jonathan. Of course everyone is amazed by how well Lanore is doing, except Jonathan. Jonathan, now head of the family, is unhappy in his marriage and has taken a mistress on the side. He isn't really warming up to Lanore's suggestions to go to Boston with her to meet the enchanting count who paid for Lanore's trip. He has one obligation too many and he somewhat cares for his wife and daughter. I was immensely glad that we didn't get to read too much about Jonathan's internal turmoil  before he got shot. It was leathal so Lanore managed to turn him into an immortal (when he was out cold) and kidnap him. I was sure that Katsu would write another 100 page of Lanore's dilemma with this mature Jonathan (she has been gone for 2-3 years). On their way back to Boston Jonathan wakes up and is mortified by what Lanore has done to him. Basically Jonathan is now tied to Lanore. Nothing can ever cause him physical pain, only if Lanore chooses to hurt him (like Adair hurt Lanore).

In Boston Adair makes Jonathan his new favourite. They go to party every night and Adair introduces Jonathan to the other socialites as his cousin. Mean while Lanore is very skeptical about Adair's plans for Jonathan. She doesn't understand why he is so taken with him, no matter how pretty he is. At first she was afraid that Adair would take Jonathan away from her by binding Jonathan to him. But Lanore averted that by binding Jonathan to her first. Naturally Adair was furious, but Jonathan's passive charm charmed Adair so he pretty much forgot all about Lanore. During these events Jonathan is exceptionally passive. He does what Adair tells him to do and the best part, he doesn't talk much. Ahem..Lanore begans to search for the reason Adair is infatuated with Jonathan. In the end it's Uzra, Adair's concubine, who shows Lanore what Adair is about. She has been hiding in a secret spot in the attic and she once discovered Adair's secret spell-magic-library there. Uzra shows it to Lanore and dun-dun-duh she learns that Adair has been studying body shifting, how to transport one's spirit in to a new body. 

I can hear you sigh. Evidently madame Katsu has been reading Lovecraft...
Lanore tears a few pages from the book and goes to plan how to safe Jonathan. Later Adair discovers that his secret library has been disturbed and so he kills Uzra. He is also about to go on a journey with Jonathan and tells everyone in his posse that when Jonathan comes back, he'll be out of the States, travelling by himself. Now that Lanore has discovered that he wants to posses Jonathan's body, she starts to make arrangements to save sweet sweet Jonathan. She orders a pile of brick for the basement and seduces Adair's..uumm accountant?consultant? so that every single penny Adair has goes to Jonathan. Adair has already been transfering assests to Jonathan, so I don't really remember why Lanore seduced Adair's whatever-that-person was. She also goes to visit a university professor whom she met in one of Adair's orgies to ask him about the pages she tore out. She learns about a potion that will put a person in forever sleep. In the morning of their trip, Lanore has prepared the potion and goes to see Adair. He is smoking the hookah (he smokes hookah like all the time) so he is not much of a threat at the moment. He tells Lanore not to worry if Jonathan seems a bit odd at first when he comes back. Lanore pours them some wine, secretly mixing the 'sleeping potion' in to the wine. She only pretends to drink whilst watching him drink the whole cup and listening him to admit his eternal love for her. When he starts to doze of, she tells him that she knows that he is the evil sorcerer who abused the gypsy boy almost 500 years ago. He switched bodies with the boy right before the villagers came in so they actually killed the gypsy boy (how very Lovecrafty and couple other stories that have the same plot twist. What next, Adair has an evil ring that needs to be destroyed by tossing it in to a volcano?). I have to admit, I did not see that one coming. Taken how crappy this story is, that was nice and unexpected. It would have been even better plot twist, if 10 other writers hadn't used the same plot twist before Katsu. Adair admits that he is the evil sorcerer and complements Lanore one more time and confesses his eternal love for her before he falls asleep. Lanore rushes to Jonathan's room and tells him Adair's story and what he intended to do with Jonathan. Together they carry Adair to the basement and seal him behind a brick wall. I must tell you that before tying Adair, Lanore considers using that torture harnest on Adair, but decides agains it. It would be too cruel. Um, question, how could it be too cruel?! This man killed an innocent young man to attain his body (well he didn't literally kill him but he partly caused his death), he has most likely killed other people too, plus he arranged your rape, got rid of your baby and literally tortured you. Maybe I'm too cruel because I totally would have used that harnest on Adair. 

Now Adair is resting in the basement of his mansion, behind a brick wall whilst Jonathan and Lanore leave Boston forever. Lanore's story is almost done and she and Luke have had time to 'get baked' and have sex plus they have made it to Canada. Before they leave to France Lanore tells Luke how she came to kill Jonathan. She and Jonathan spend a few years together, but he was never happy with her. He was miserable, and then she became miserable, but she could never let him go or tell him to go. She loved him too much to let him out of her sight. She said, he'd have to leave her himself because she can't ask him to leave her. And so one day, after 2 or 3 years he finally left her. The next two centuries Lanore travels and apparently steals precious artifacts from various countries until she settles in Paris. Now in the 21st century she has become an appreciated china porcelain/tea set expert. On one day Jonathan contacts her and asks her to meet him in Paris. Jonathan has been travelling too, and he has been treating people in Africa. Jonathan tracked Lanore down by an illustration (or was it a photo?) he saw in a book (Lanore was the model). He wants to go back to St. Andrew and asks Lanore to come with him. They return to St. Anrew and reminisce about the old days. They go into the woods and that's when Jonathan asks Lanore the kill him. He was in love with a woman who worked with him in Africa, but she died and now he can't live without her (in case it's still unclear, Jonathan really didn't give a shit about Lanore). I'm not blaming Jonathan for not loving Lanore. I can understand the situation he was in. You can't force yourself to love or care for someone. So he never loved Lanore, fair enough. And Lanore being the typical female protagonist (in these type of stories) is fucking stupid for thinking that he'd ever love her back.  
Jonathan has low self-esteem, Lanore is stupid and Adair is a punk and a dick, there you have it, Katsu's wonderful cast.
Blaah blaah blaah Lanore is sad and she won't do kill him and he is miserable because he lost the love of his life. In the end Lanore takes Jonathan's life by stabbing him with a broken bottle. Remember that he can only die by his maker's hand. And so Lanore finishes her story, she and Luke move to Paris, Luke finds the empty eternal life vial and destroyes it. The End.

If you managed to stick with me until the end, it's needless to say that I think that this book really sucked. Hands down, this is one of the worst books I have ever read.

At first I thought I'd read The 2dn book, 'The Reckoning' because I wanted to know what happens after Adair wakes up and goes to look for Lanore and Jonathan. Buuuuttt...then I read Patricia Mathew's review and decided against it. Link to her review on books 1 and 2 http://fangfiction.blogspot.fi/2012/05/alma-katsu-taker-trilogy.html. 
I think Katsu's idea for book 2 is interesting, but once again it's ruined by her incompetent writing style. 

This was my first and last book I read from Alma Katsu. Seriously madame Katsu, Taker's idea is interesting, but it's back to college (or writing course) for you. You seeeeriously need to learn how to construct your story, how to create interesting characters and most importantly, how to build great dialogue. Now off you go!

I hope found my review on 'The Taker' interesting. Stay tuned for this month's artist. I'm torn between an Old Master and a Finnish Fine Artist...

Cheers!

AP 

Artist of the Month: Victoria Francés

Huida 2003.

Wow, I was checking out my statistics and my Tove Jansson entry has had more readers in two weeks than what Luis Royo had after two weeks of its realease. Evidently Royo arouses interest in all kinds of people, but it seems to me that Tove is soon going to be my new number one =) And no wonder, she was extremely talented.

August's artist is (once again) coming from Spain. Luis Royo is Spanish and I dare to say, really famous there. However, right behind him comes an artist who, do I dare to say, has a big boner for everything gothic-romantic.

Victoria Francés was born in Valencia, but was practically raised in Galicia (Northwest of Spain). It's said that she spend a lot of time in the forests of Galicia and in one of her interviews Francés says that she still keeps drawing inspiration from Galicia's woods. 
Not much is said about her art education, exept that she studied at the Polytechnic University of Valencia majoring in Fine Art. Apparently there was a department or other branch of the University called The Faculty of Fine Arts of San Carlos (Facultad de Bellas Artes de San Carlos) where Francés worked as an illustrator. It's rather impressive that she got a real job that had something to do with her degree, most art students get to wait on tables or serve drinks in a bar. (me? I'm still waiting tables to safe money for makeup school..Although I do have 2 art shows under my belt). But Francés was lucky, she got to design book covers and work on commission pieces. It's really impressive if an art student can make money on her/his art.

One could say that San Carlos gave her a little push to really start her career. Her first illustrated book Favole was published in 2003. The book consists of illustrations inspired by Verona, Venice and Genova. Favole enjoyed moderate success (which I think is good from a young and upcoming artist) in Spain and in other countries where it was published.
Even if you aren't familiar with Francés' work, this books literally tells everything Francés is all about: romance, gothic and victorian clothes (and vampires). And I do not mean 'gothic' as people dressed in all black and wear heavy black eyeliner, I mean gothic as in art history gothic.
Francés has said that she is immensely inspired by the Pre-Raphaelite paintings. Well duh, that is a given. However as much as Francés is trying to achieve that Pre-Raphaelite look I think her style is more stylised compared to the Pre-Raphs. As much as I like her work and really admire her style, I still think that that gothic-big-dresses-grave-yard-girls-castles is rather kitsch. To be perfectly honest, I think her work is really-really kitsch. I can understand that she is inspired by the gothic era and the Pre-Raphaelite group, but I personally think that artist's job is not to copy others, but to make their own stuff. It's clear that Francés adores this stuff since she dresses the part (I hope it's not a publicity stunt) and it's ok that she is doing what she loves. I just wish that she'd try to do something different than gothic girls at grave yards because she could adapt her style in to so many subjects! But just because I'm saying her art is kitsch doesn't change the fact that she is a very talented artist. I had a mini poster of one of her illustrations plus I buy her calendar every other year because I think her illustrations are stunning.

Libera me 2004

Favole was followed by Favole II which showed Francés interested in Venice and particularly in masquerades. It's a kind of mixture of Venice and central Europe featuring witch girls and vampires. I say central Europe because the landscapes remind me of Germany. The castles reminded me of England at first, but then I starting thinking that if Francés was telling stories with her illustrations, they'd probably be better situated in Germany rather than in England or Scotland. Favole II was published in 2004 and Francés made her first public appearance at the 22dn International Comic Fair in Barcelona. I read that she wore the similar gothic clothes to the fair as her characters wear in her illustrations. It seems that she prefers gothic/gothic lolita clothing. I read that Francés was very shy when she went to the fair, but to her delight there were many people to meet and greed her. She became a star of the book signing session and she even drew small illustrations for her fans. Not to mention she turned out to be a natural in answering questions and posing for photos. And there, at the fair, she got to fulfil a dream of hers, she met Luis Royo, her favourite illustrator. Francés has named Royo as one her idols and trendsetters.
Favole II was followed by Favole III in 2005 followed by an opportunity to travel to the States for Comic Con in San Diego. 

El hada de Venecia 2004

With Heart of Arlene (El Corazón de Arlene 2005) Francés decided to step a way from her usual gothic-romantic theme and play with the idea of gender and dolls and social reality. The Heart of Arlene is a mixture of contemporary Francés and classic Francés. She delights us with new themes such as Arlene herself, and treats the die-hard fans with a couple of classic illustrations, some of which have been sexed up. I personally really like Francés' angle on Hada transgénero - El nacimiento de Venus (2006) of a butterfly girl wearing a seethrough dress. Because I happen to like sexy art, I think this is a theme Francés should explore more. That illustration looks so naughty, but so sensitive and eerie at the same time. This illustration is done in her usual style whilst many of the others in Arlene seem like they were done in mixed media. You'll find the Heart of Arlene so different from the Favole trilogy. Arlene is more of a collection extreme characters, people who are more-or-less damaged. The illustrations remind me faintly of the seven deadly sins. The butterfly Venus is Lust, Lluminada girl is Pride, Rojo is Wrath, Arlene is Sloth (the old Sloth, from the Bible, not the new binging Sloth) and so on. Even though the illustrations in Arlene are not as detailed as Francés' other illustrations, they are still worth checking out.

Violin herido 2005.

In 2009 Francés published the first volume of Misty Circus which she presented in the Barcelona Comic Fair. This volume adds another new aspect to Francés collection of illustrations, (but it's not as exciting as the others). Misty Circus tells of Sasha, a child pierrot who travels with the Misty Circus. One review called it 'an ingenuity on the decadent'. Well....uumm.. ingenuity and decadent to me sound like a bunch of buzz words stupid people use to make themselves sound smart. Personally I think Misty Circus is rather dull compared to Francés other published works such as the Favole trilogy or Heart of Arlene. Misty Circus is melancholic and the Indian browns and faded grey's give the series a timeless look. I wouldn't call it decadent by a long shot, comme ci comme ca sounds about right. Even though the concept is interesting Francés isn't pushing it nearly as far as it could (and should) be pushed. Perhaps Circus theme was very popular in 2009 that she chose to leave Misty Circus like that, to avoid copying other people.  And it clearly shows that Francés hasn't given this concept as much thought as she has given to her previous concepts. Above is a stunnig illustration of the Vampire Lestat from Favole III. Misty Circus shows a small change in Francés routine and when I first saw the Misty Circus illustrations, I was surprised that she was stepping out of her gothic-masquerade routine to tackle a very different theme. Even though everyone wears costumes and masks in Circus, Francés hasn't incorporated this to her Misty Circus. Misty Circus is more like 'a short story' of a circus long time ago.

Velos 2001.

With Dark Sanctuary (2008) Francés returns to her more familiar concept. This new book of illustrations mixes music and portraits. I get it that there is a hint of music in the air (I mean hint of music in the illustrations) but otherwise this series is not as impressive as the Favole trilogy or Heart of Arlene. It's beautiful series and I guess it's suppose to relay the message of beauty and aging and music's immortality, buut it's still very boring. I personally don't do the deep symbolism thing (and I do not care for poetry) so perhaps this series is too skin deep for me aka I don't get it nor care for it. 

In 2009 the second volume of Misty Circus came out. Night of the Witches is a continuation of a story about witches who supposedly travel with the Misty Circus. In Misty Circus we follow the story of Sasha, the child pierrot, in Night of the Witches we meet Madame Chloë, a child witch/fortune-teller. She looks similar to Sasha, with her large reddish eyes and almost-anime head. Sasha's and Cloë's character designs are very unexpected, and very different from Francés' usual designs. I know that Francés doesn't have many child characters, but I'm just wondering what possed her to make Cloë look like that. She looks interesting without a doubt, but compared to Francés' usual stuff, she looks very unhuman. Perhaps it's Francés' personal joke that circus folks aren't human. 
I have to say the colours in this series are b-e-a-utiful! For once Francés is not afraid to use bold, strong colours. Even though most of the colours are sort of faded out, the purples, greens and reds pop out real nicely. Especially that horse carriage illustration and that Wizard/magician illustration have beautiful bold colours. Yes, magic is about bold colours! I wish Francés would introduce bold colours to her other works as well. Night of the Witches is a nice series and fits in to Misty Circus. Personally I'd like to see more of these Misty Circus 'episodes'. Maybe next time Francés will introduce us the 'Black Swan', trapeze artist, she is as graceful as a swan and flies higher!

Her latest publication, Integral Favole came out in 2011. This series gives yet another spin to Francés' CV. And personally, I think some of the illustrations in this series could be Francés' best work. I adore her detailed works in the Favole trilogy which she continues to show in Integral Favole yet it is a little different from the others. The colours for example are really faded out. Perhaps 2011 was a Grey Season for Francés since most of the illustrations in Integral Favole are mostly different shade of grey and taupe. I don't recall seeing anyone use taupe so beautifully as Francés does in this series. Personally I'd like to think I.F is independent from the other Favole's because the colour scheme is so, so different from the other 3. Even though each Favole has a theme she doesn't decribe them too literally. However this time I find that there is a real story in I.F. In my mind I.F is a tale of a family who lives in a castle in...the outskirts of Venice (really? Because there is like a forest and a pond near a castle...), but it's not a normal family at all, it's a vampire family. They are aristocratics who indulge themselves in Venice's night life. Yet the women are saddened by their immortal existense and the crimes they have to commit to survive. Expect the one, the teenage looking girl who seems to be embracing her inner vampire. The men in the family are 50/50, the other one is like the mopey Lestat, locked away in his room because he doesn't want anything to do with the world anymore. And the other guy who uses his good looks and charm to hunt down the ladies of Venice by night. Even though I'm drawing you this picture of a cliché vampire family, I was not dissapointed with this Favole.

Velo Nupcial 2011

The reason Francés is one of my favourite illustrators is clear when you look at her unique colour palette. Seriously, when have you seen an artist use earth tones so beautifully and as often as Francés does? Her palette, painting style and themes are gorgeous! I wish I could paint as well as she does (I have tried, skin is rather difficult to paint realistically, but she nails it!). Talking about her colour palette, it's the different grey's and taupes that give it that gothic touch. And it's actually really romantic too. When you think about it, the palette in Velo Nupcial for example is very romantic. I wouldn't exactly call it gothic because to me gothic means a lot of pointy towers and lace decorations and black. But that's the cliché with gothic, everybody thinks it has to be black (but it doesn't, especially when it comes to art). Couple of sources have called Francés' art Gothic Romantic, which is right I guess...exept Gothic Romance refers to the late 18th century literature. You can of course say that her illustrations most definately have a story behind them, but in terms of art and art genre, Gothic Romantic is not a correct term for Francés' style. I'd just call it fantasy art. But that doesn't mean I don't find her art romantic. I think Velo Nupcial is a very romantic illustration. This girl is part of the vampire family in Integral Favole. She is purifying herself from the sorrows immortality has brought her. Perhaps she was a bride to be, but accidentally killed her groom, or the crazy teen vampire killed him. And now the young ex-bride is left to mourn for her lost love. Or perhaps she is a ghost-water-spirit who is unable to move on. Most of Francés' illustrations convey melancholy and deep saddness...and so does Velo Nupcial. Subject wise I don't see any other meaning to this illustrations exept that she is very very sad. The paint job is a-may-zaah though! Francés blends all those taupes and browns and grey-blues with confidence, and she was very smart to leave the white bits very very white. That way all the colours really compliment each other. Although there is not much bright or cute colours for me to gush about, I really really like this illustrations because it's so well made. The light yet broken down colour imply that there is a story 'as old as time' behind this scene, but she conveniently leaves it for the viewer to decide what's going on in the illustration.

Like some other artists, Francés has created a world of her own. As I said before, the broken down and blended colours suggest that Francés' world is perhaps Victorian because all the people are wearing like long dresses and puffy shirts and tight pants etc. And that is OK, exept, if you take away her unique style, what else is there? Then she'd be just another fantasy artist, painting girls in long dresses, lying in snow or posing in front of a window. It'd be really boring I know. Perhaps some of you find her art boring regardless because it's just about fancy people posing in odd locations. Francés' art is very commercial because her subject is very popular among certain age groups. I can see why so many people like her illustrations. And they don't even have to be interested in art because Francés has gained a steady fanbase just with her illustrations-turned-into calendars, and duvet sets, and posters. I buy her calendar every other year and I had the Libera me poster (I lost it. Iii lost my poster, rippito flippito sippi slow motion!). I don't mind that she has gone commercial. I'm just saying that because her subject is commercial, it's a tad hard to take her for a serious fine artist. After all, fine artists or even fashion designers dread to go commercial because it might dock down their 'value' and make them 'those' kind of artists.

I had the Libera me poster and it's actually one of my favourite illustrations from Francés. It's incredibly detailed. I can only imagine the time and effort she spend making this illustration. That dress is exeptionally well depicted. The folds look accurate and there are no bizarre shadows or tone changes. Her skin looks a bit matte, but otherwise she looks very realistic. As a matter of fact the whole image looks very matte, as if it was done with colour pencils. I'm not sure if Francés uses water colours or acrylics (or colour pencils?) but I got the impression she mostly uses acrylics. Though Libera me doesn't look like it was made with acrylics. It's a somewhat romantic scene and even though I have a slight problem with the perspective and depth of this image it's really not as bad as Huida (seriously, it's a pretty illustration but my gawd, is the composition in that image really awful. That well in the middle and that girl in the white dress running to the right, it makes a really awkward scene *shudder*). Because the trees are so damn small in Libera me, we can choose to think that the vampire girl is either monsterous big, or this is just awkward composition on Francés' part. However don't be mad at me, I still like this illustration very very much. It's beautiful to look at, it has drama and mystery to it plus I love love looove her rose crown and her hair! I so want that hair ;)  

Even though I'm not that gothic, I still enjoy France´s work very much. I can totally imagine myself as that girl in Huida. I have finally managed to escape the evil overlord's (he is mostly likely a vampire) grip and am now running to my freedom. But first I need to pass this omnious forest.
I can also imagine that I'm one of those fancy ladies living in Venice. I go to a masquarade ball every night and wear gorgeous dresses. I can see that her art is especially appealing to girls ;D
I hear Francés poses for her illustrations, or rather she makes illustrations on the bases of her photo shoots. So perhaps we can assume that Francés' illustrations are partly self-portraiture hence quite personal. Her style interests me and in fact her illustrations give me this image of old yellow-ish paintings from the past. And as we know, when it comes to old yellow-ish paintings or letters, there is always a story there.
These photos are just a glimpse of what Francés can do with her talent and subject. She is indeed a very talented artist. I'm looking forward to see what she does next.

Remember to check out Francés' unique website. Seriously, it's very nicely done. Sadly it's only in Spanish, but you get to see her illustrations. http://www.victoriafrances.es/

I hope you enjoyed my review on Victoria Francés and I'll see you next month!

Cheers!

A.P

Autumn book club: Let the right one in.

Hi guise!!

OMG I'm going to see Lady Gaga in Helsinki this month!!! I am so excited =D I got a really good seat too, right near stage, so I should be able to see Gaga perfectly <3 I'm going to see her on Monday the 27^th so only a few weeks left. Will be perfect since I'm looking to work really hard the rest of the month. I haven't been feeling particularly artistic right now, so it's gonna be inspiring to see Gaga's show. I have a couple of collages that I should finish, buuuut since I'm doing long hours at work, I don't have the energy to focus on art afterwards. Hence I thought I'd do something fun for my blog for a change.

I know there are hundreds of blogs focusing on literature and literature is very popular subject among Finnish bloggers. I believe one of our ministers keeps a literature blog which he updates regularly. My blog is a miss-match of different things I'm interested in. Well so far it has been about art, but I'm looking to talk about other stuff too.

There are times when I read books in tandem, and then there are times when I don't read anything at all. Right now I'm on one of my literary tandems, hence I thought I'd give you the 4-1-1 on 5 books I have 'recently' read.

However, there is a catch (with me, there's always a catch xP). IF I post all 5 right now, this would be seriously looooooong entry. Nothing wrong with that, but I think you, the reader, would get frustrated about how long this entry is going to go on (like reading a school book: 'OMG I have already read 30 pages and there is still 30 left on the British bread wars!'). And since it's me writing these reviews, they are going to be long.

I'm going to start with a book I read in June followed by:

The Taker by Alma Katsu

Män som hatar kvinnor (The girl with the dragon tattoo) by Stieg Larsson

Rei Shimura series (I think I'll review two of those) by Sujata Massey

and the last one is...well I haven't decided yet.

I'm looking to post The Taker next month and Lisbeth's series in October and so on...

Now, I must warn you about big time spoilers. In order to give you my honest opinion on these books, I have to assume that you have read them, or are curious to know what happens and you don't mind spoilers. If I have to avoid spoilers this would be just another plain book review. There are many things I wanna say about these books so it makes more sense if I'm allowed to assume that you have read the books. I'm going to be critizing some of the books quite 'heavily' so hopefully you are not one of those people who get offended easily --_-- You have been warned!

I'm going to start with a book that I really really liked for its capability to amalgamate fantasy in to reality. Låt den rätte komma in (Let the right one in) by John Ajvide Lindqvist. I read a few reviews on this book years before and I came really close to buying the movie (the Swedish one, duh!), but I knew that I'd read the book one day so I didn't wanna spoil the story for me. I read this book in June and what happens to me sometimes when I read a book is that I start reading it, then I get bored and leave it for a few and weeks and then finish it. Same thing happened with this book because I felt that it wasn't proceeding fast enough and that there wasn't much stuff happening. When you get past that, Låt den rätte komma in is actually very interesting story.

What I think is important to understand about this story is that it doesn't religiously follow the main character, this is more like a collection of mini stories involving people who are accidentally involved with each other. The main character is a twelve-year-old Swedish boy named Oskar. The story takes place in a suburb near Stockholm in early winter of 1981. Oskar is bullied at school, he has a problem with urination and is slightly over-weight .He lives with his mother and doen't have anyone to call a friend. So he is a typical little boy (who wasn't bullied at school, who had ''friends'' but didn't have friends?). The book takes a really interesting turn right in the beginning when Oskar is walking through a forest to find a secret place to let out all his anger. Mean while there is a man in the same forest searching for a prey. I seriously thought that Lindqvist would kill off his main character right in the beginning. My skin was crawling when the story was describing the lurker's thoughts. Håkan (the gay pedophile lurker) kills a different boy and drains his blood. It's revealed that Oskar was on his way to a different spot where he played that he'd kill his bullies by stabbing them to death (he stabs trees with a kitchen knife). So Oskar lives to fight another day, until he meets Eli. Eli is a girl living in the next apartment house (she and Oskar share a wall). At first Eli is cold and distant until she warms up to Oskar's gestures to become friends when he loans her his Rubik's cube (she shows genuine interest in the toy). Hence they start meeting every night after dusk. During the day Oskar goes to school and avoids bullies, steals knives and candy and buys stolen items from his neighbour Tommy and deals flyers on the weekends.

I found it fascinating how genuine Oskar was. Here we have a twelve-year-old boy who is severely abused and humiliated at school, yet he still manages to find small pleasures in life. I know in America people would be appaled to read about a damaged young boy who steals weapons and runs away from his father in the middle of the night, but to me, this is very realistic depiction of this child's life. Cause and consequences. Under the circumstances Oskar is, you can't expect him to be too-goody-two-shoes. I mean, kids run away from home all the time, kids steal stuff, yet none of this is barely depicted in stories anymore. Contemporary stories tend to stay tame or, on the contrary, they go way over board, to the point they become silly. This story isn't silly (well until the point when Håkan..well you'll know when you get there). It's very endearing to read about Oskar's attempts to befriend Eli. It warms my heart when the two indeed become friends and for the first time Oskar has a real friend in the world. I found it encouraging to read how Oskar slowly gains more confidence and gets over his urination problem (caused my trauma) and for the first time stands up for his tormentors.. In the beginning Oskar may seem like a young boy heading to loony town since he is obsessed with keeping a scarpbook of newspaper articles about murders. He even practices how to kill his tormentors and uses the threat of 'the ritual murderer' to steal a proper hunting knife from a store. However halfway the book it struck me that Oskar is actually pretty smart. But you'll have to have read the book to see for yourself.

While Oskar's and Eli's friendship deepens (Lindqvist doesn't rush the process), we move on to follow the gay pedophile Håkan. It doesn't take a genious to realize that Håkan is involved with Eli and kills young ones (not too young!) to supply Eli with human blood. Later in the story we learn that Håkan was an elementary school teacher who liked young boys. He wasn't involved with anyone from his school, but a collection of child pornography was found in his possession, so the school fired him and somebody burned down his house. Eli found him when he was literally at the bottom of his life. He is in love with Eli, but remains passive, even gentleman-ish, towards her, who refrains from all sexual intercourse with him. He deeply longs to touch and feel his loved one, who time after time denies this pleasure from him, still he feels deep attachment to Eli. After killing his second victim (the one in the woods) he goes to a library in Stockholm and purchases oral sex from a ten year old immigrant. What really struck me was when Håkan notices that the boy doesn't have teeth =( He assumes that they have been removed to make the oral task easier (more pleasurable for the receiver?) so he gives the boy a fast sum of money to get new teeth. Everyone probably assumes that Håkan is the villain of this story, but the way I see it, he is the anti-hero. I am strongly against pedophilism and do not agree what Håkan does in the story, but Lindqvist writes so accurately about Håkan's regret and conflict that one can't help, but pity and like him at the same time. He is a diamond in the rough, a person who has been making wrong decisions all his life. His innocent obsession with Eli is rather endearing and it's rather amazing to see him respected her wishes not to have intercourse, even though he is clearly aching for her. Lindqvist is really good at telling about Håkan's conflict without going overboard. With small gestures he tells how greatly bothered Håkan is by the murders he had to commit to keep his loved one alive. Still Lindqvist doesn't tell this via fancy words nor drag the sentence on and on by throwing in various figurative expressions. I don't shy away from extreme characters, and you have to admit it, when was the last time you saw a gay pedophile in a story? It's fresh and it's obscene, and it's so Scandinavian. Hello from North Europe, we bring you a collection of extreme characters who are as much extreme as they are realistic. I think it was nice of Håkan to give that young boy money to get his teeth fixed. Yes he is a criminal, but Lindqvist has build this character so well and accurately that I can see a real person there. He has major unforgivable flaws, but there is also goodness in him. Not that I think it's right of him to purchase oral sex from little boys to begin with. However it is a bit annoying when Håkan mopes about his eternal love for Eli and the things he has to do for her, while she has no respect for him what so ever. He is just a food provider to her (personally I think she's a dick). At least he gets to feel like he is the luckiest man on earth to have been chosen by such an angel (and there might also be a promise of eternal life).

Håkan's lifes takes a drastic turn when Eli sends him for his last mission (after she screwed up badly and killed a local drunk Lacke ← this is actually a really sad story). Håkan says that he will get her blood one more time, under the condition that he may hold her and touch her after the deed is done. So he goes to a local swimming pool (indoors) and rents a booth to himself, where he makes a mess in his booth when he sees young boys (I guess he is easily stimulated). He manages to capture and 'drug' a boy (he uses some sort of helium tank to make the victim unconscious and then drains them dry) and proceeds to drain him. (regarding this practice there is a wonderful little conversation in the beginning of the story between Tommy and his friends. They hang out at their building's air-raid shelter and discuss how pigs are slaughtered. One of them says that the pigs are hung upside down and drained from their blood while they are conscious). The boy wakes up and makes a ruckus. Before men can burst in to Håkan's booth, he takes a jam jar and pours the acid inside all over his face. His last thoughts are rather moving, he imagines that Eli, angel boy Eli, comes to take him away, and then he pours the acid whilst yelling 'Eli, Eli'.

Mean while Eli has been making a mess of her own. Håkan has dissapeared and she needs blood. She is strong enough to move on her own, but she needs more blood. Hence before she sent Håkan to his last mission, she killed a local drunk Lacke who spend his evenings and nights in a local Chinese restaurant. Now we meet people who may not seem as important to the story's development, but we'll get there. I'm guessing this group of bums is Lindqvist's way of showing how much damage a single parson can do to others. And that every single person has a life and plans of their own, that we shouldn't look down on people no matter what their social status is. At first I was confused to be reading about these local bums who spend their days drinking at a local pub/restaurant with no plans for the future nor ambition (they reminded me too much of the local 'drunks/bums' we have at work). But then Lindqvist gives us Lacke, a man who may be a bum, but still has some drive in him to go traveling and maybe meet someone and settle down. It actually opened my eyes a little since I reckon some of the bums at our restaurant are just spinless, boring people with no credibility. But Lindqvist reminded me that just like Lacke, those bums have plans, things they wanna do and see (but I don't get it why they wanna spend their time at out restaurant EVERYDAY, literally everyday from 10am or 3pm until 10pm). So it's very sad to read when Eli attacks Lacke and kills him. The others are left to grieve for his dissapearance (Håkan dumps the body in a nearby lake), however someone saw Eli attack Lacke. Gösta is a...uummm local loony, cocooned in his apartment with dozens of cats. The others know him and visit him every now and then. So the gang goes to visit him and Gösta tells them what he saw. Lacke's bestfriend Jocke (yeah...I know) is devastated and in his grief insults badly his old (and current) flame Virginia. She rushes out and is far ahead before Jocke rushes after her. He is just in time to see Eli attack Virginia, but Eli is unable to kill her, so Virginia is left wounded. Note that Gösta and Jocke only see a child attack Lacke and Virginia. They don't know Eli.

At this point it would be appropriate to tell you that Eli is a vampire (chuckle). Virginia is infected and begins to turn into a vampire. The story follows her struggles which is rather interesting since she has no idea that she is turning into a vampire. Reading about her ordeal was actually really touching. She was the innocent one. She just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time and now she is left to pay for it. Hence it should be clear by now that Lindqvist wanted to make everyone of his characters victims. It's up to you to decide whether they are all victims of Eli or of their own life style (I personally like to think that they are all victims of Eli). In the end Virginia ends up in a hospital and commits suicide (she asks the nurse to open the drapes). Jocke is once again left devastated and if not earlier, this is where you should realize how realistic this story actually is. It's not a story about silly vampires and monsters, it's a story about people with real-life plans and thoughts. This is especially visible in Jocke's gang because they aren't Hollywood-good-looking people with fast sums of money and a few thoughts on life. They are regular people who have very ordinary lives, who seek small pleasures that they can find in their enviroment and pass yet another ordinary day. You won't find 'a thing' happening in these places, no catastrophe or monster lurking in the woods. It's plain everyday life. People go to work, they come home (or our restaurant xP) and do the same thing tomorrow and the day after tomorrow and so on. However, in this case Eli delivers a massive blow to their everyday life by taking Lacke's life and, in a way, Virginia's life. Jocke has been planning to move to the country side, and have two cabins build, one for him and one for Virginia. He came to a conclusion that they could never be a couple in traditional sense, but they both enjoy each others company and like each other enough to stay 'together'. And once again I'm saddened by the fact that they loose another member of their 'gang'. It's very Scandinavian of Lindqvist to remind us that life is fleeting, and anything can end it sooner than it began. The presence of death is a very popular subject in Scandinavian works. I don't know why, so please don't ask me. (maybe it's the melancholy factor?).

Eli has been very busy when she finally founds Håkan in a hospital. He is very much alive but badly disfigured, hence he has been able to conceal Eli from the authorities. Håkan asks Eli to end his life, but right before Eli can finish the task, someone comes in forcing her to stop so she leaves. Håkan leaps of the open window, killing himself in the process. Naaah I'm just kidding, he doesn't die, instead he later turns into a middless vampire who is fueled by his obsession with Eli. Bad people always get what's coming to them. Oh the irony!

Back to Oskar. He has already began to fall in love with Eli, when he discovers that she is a vampire, and the man he once saw was 'the ritual murderer' who supplies Eli with blood. PLOT TWIST. Eli explains that she is not in fact a girl, but a boy named Elias and he was castrated during his turning ritual. He wears girl's clothes to disguise himself. Oskar bolts, but later decides to stick with the only friend he has ever had.

Eli, 'shunned' by Oskar, goes to the air-raid shelter and meets Håkan by chance. Håkan in his insane tantrum hurls himself at Eli and tries to force sexual intercourse on him. Eli fights Håkan off and managed to lock him in a..basement? Another room in the air-raid shelter? Eli leaves and we learn that Tommy is now locked in the room with the senseless Håkan. Håkan is later killed by Tommy in rather traumatizing way (Tommy slowly beats Håkan to a bloody pulp, literally).

Back to Oskar. He is now convinced that he wants to remain friends with Eli, even though Elias is a boy and a vampire. He sneeks in to Eli's apartment and finds him sleeping in a bath tub filled with blood. Oskar goes to sleep on the sofa. Later Jocke walks in and attempts to kills Eli. But Oskar wakes Eli up and Eli kills Jocke. I'm now feeling very passive-agressive about this. Here we have a ten-year-old wee monster boy who totally fucked up 3 people's lives. Not to mention the other three who are now left grieving for their lost friends. Eli has no idea what he has done. Although he is becoming a little more thoughtful because for the first time Eli goes to buy blood. Before Håkan caught him, he bought and drank little bit of Tommy's blood. So we can assume that Eli is trying to make an effort not to kill for food anymore (that's how we vegetarians feel. Why are there so few of us still?). Still to me Eli is really uninspired and impersonal character. Actually I find him the most boring character in the book. I groaned a little when ever the story followed Eli. It's clear that he is emotionally and personally constipated character who finds loneliness oh-so-killing. Really --_-- there isn't a single vampire/monster in stories who isn't tormented by loneliness (well except Mr. Hyde). And somehow some of the other writers are able to get past that little quirk, giving us interesting vampires. Buuuut.... Lindqvist kinda dropped the ball with Elias. He is not interesting because he has no personality! Sure it's endearing to watch Eli and Oskar become friends, and it's even more endearing and heart warming since Oskar had no friends before. But it doesn't change the fact that Elias is an impersonal monster and nothing more. Although it is releaving to see Oskar make true friends with somebody at last.

Oskar has been 'training' to stand up for his bullies and his friendship with Eli gives him new courage to finally fight back. He manages to really hurt the worst bully and accidentally sends their classroom on fire (Oskar sneaks in to the school one night and burns the bullies' desks plus half the classroom by accident). The next day Oskar goes to the school in the evening to workout with his gym teacher and fellow students. The bullies sneek in and knock down the teacher. They proceed to burn and drown Oskar in the swimming pool (indoors). While the other kids watch Oskar is nearly killed BUT LUCKILY Eli bursts in, rips the bullies' heads clean off and takes Oskar with him. One the last page, Oskar is travelling (I forgot where he's going) with Eli's stuff and money and we get a hint that Eli is waiting for him at his destination.

Although it may seem that Lindqvist is dragging the story and the stuff that happen don't really mean a thing, they really are building towards a bigger conclusion. I know, I know it can get frustrating to read about characters like Tommy's future stepfather (it's funny, after killing Håkan Tommy probably turned religious like his mother and future stepfather me thinks ;D), but believe me when I say that Lindqvist makes interesting story structure and..umm inner dialogue. The characters think a lot, but fear not, Lindqvist's style makes it an interesting read. However what I really liked about this story was its sense of reality. When I told my BFF about this book he immediately dissed it because it didn't seem to make any sense to him at all. Perhaps the monster Håkan isn't that realistic, but when Oskar tries to befriend Eli, or when he is thinking to himself that he can't afford new winter shoes this year either, it's these bits that make the story so realistic. Plus I really really like the setting, that the story is based in Sweden and not some place else (ALTHOUGH it is such a cliche of the writer to situate the story in his/her home country) Like I said before, all the people in the book get more or less involved with each other. It's quite fascinating to read how their lives become entangled. 
I know that Lindqvist is trying to build this idea of every character in the book being a victim, but I am more interested in how the character influence each other's lives.

As far as vampire books go, this is the best one I have read. And you should know that I have read MANY, repeat, MANY vampire books. Låt den rätte komma in (Let the right one in) doesn't scream 'vampire', which may dissapoint some people, but come on, how many actually good vampire books have you read? Come at me bro, how many!!??

This story is daunting, it's thrilling even scary at times, plus you can't denye the fact that every single character in the story could exist in real life (even Elias if you choose to believe in vampires). All in all I was not dissapointed with this story. Lindqvist's writing style is interesting and he doesn't do the 'say it figuratively' thing that has taken hold of many writers *caugh* (British house mom with SM fantasies) *caugh*. In fact I think you'll find that Lindqvist's style differs from anything you have ever read before. That have been said, I really enjoyed this book and I'll most likely read it again.

Hope you enjoyed my review on Låt den rätte komma in and stay tuned for the artist of the month.

Cheers and byes!

A.P